leaked fabulous muscles

[hipperthanu]

little thing i'm curious about other's thoughts on...

why's it that no one ever seems to mention that, effect on the artistwise, buying a used cd (or most likely off of ebay and such) is the exact same as downloading the music. and in fact it's arguable that a person who downloads may actually buy the cd later (wanting the album to hold, wanting the liner notes, just wanting to support, yes it doesn't happen all the time, or even most probly, but it does happen).. but when the person has a copy of the album already, i'd say it's far less likely.

anyone's thoughts? i understand that one is completely legal, but if support of the artist is the main concern, then this merits some addressing.

[dr. strangelove]

interesting point. perhaps part of it lies in the fact that if i buy a used xiu xiu cd (for example), then someone else who is looking for that album will be less likely to find it used, and will therefore have to buy a new album?

then again, that really sounds like a load of crap to me. i mean, i recently picked up a used cd that was actually a demo copy, which i didn't notice until after i bought it (it was divetted on one spot). now, i know the artist will never see a penny from my buying that cd, and i'm not going to go out and buy another copy, so who was i really supporting? i guess the music store i was at, which is independent, but still...

[hops and ggrains]

everything is a circle

[whatthefuckever]

buying a used cd isn't the same. because at some point the cd was most likely new, which means that if it was bought as new, then it was bought from the distributor, which means that at that point, xiu xiu got paid.

if the used cd in question was a promo, then there's no harm done because the cost of pressing extra copies for promos is initially incurred by the label.
there's a difference. duh.

[Jim Jones the Ghetto Advocate]

Most of the people involved in the production and commercial distribution of music, whether involved with a major label or an "independent" label, are aware of the fact that the technology and organizational infrastructure for file-sharing exists and is being used by a large group of people. From the comments made by Jaime, it seems fair to assume that he, too, is aware that the music he makes digitally accessible by putting on CD's is going to be accesed through file sharing by a mass audience, simply by dint of file sharing existing in the way it does. If this accesibility is of such great a concern to those involved in the production of the music--people who feel that their "art" is being stolen--then it seems obvious that the only way to prevent what one produces from being accessed is to stop working in a medium for which this accesibility already exists (like how abstinence is the only guarantee of 100% safe sex and how no one trades installation art on Kazaa). The open accesbility of music now precedes its production, and no amount of reprimand on message boards can change that.
I bought Knife Play and the Chapel of Chimes EP, but downloaded A Promise. But my woman heard A Promise playing from my computer and went out and bought it. I have paid to see Xiu Xiu play at least 5 times but I downloaded the new album early. Where does that now put me in the table of band betrayal? How much money does it take for me to still be a "real" fan and overall nice guy?
DIY ethics seem to be more insidious, at times, than major label shit because at least the major labels are straightforward in saying that they are doing it for the money. Everything needs to be profitable on some level to keep going, even independent labels, which is why your favorite indpendent "artist" is on a message board complaining about how file sharing is cutting into profits. Too often people who tell you to "support independent music" forget that "buying" into an appearance of countercultural activity (the undergroound, DIY shit, independent labels, whatever) is qualitatively no more revolutionary than buying anything else. Maybe I'll buy the new Xiu Xiu album when it comes out just like I bought the Xiu Xiu T-shirt the last time I saw a show, and then bought a pair of shoes at the mall because I saw Jaime wearing them.

[wim]

hi

first of all.; i think music should be free. how can you own sound.. it seems stupid to me. i am a muscian and i put all my music free on the net. while selling that same music on cd.. and there are enough people buying it (ok - it's not on a label or anything, or nothing big) - true fans do support their loved bands... i mean since i got to know mp3's i have never bought as much cd's..

you could divide it in 2 parts
when you sell your music, is it because you want money for it? or do you make music because you like doing so, and appreciate it when people like it?

anyway - i downloaded everything by xiu xiu.. i ordered then everything i could find on the net (yes, i have all the records now

so, downloading mp3 is a whole different thing than stealing. i hope you all sincerely understand that... + by downloading those mp3's, i sent some to friends.. my best friend hates xiu xiu (sorry ) but i got several other friends who also ordered your stuff from the net.. so you did make some money thanks to me

you don't have to fear money when you make good music! and you do make good music, so don't worry!

i hope you don't hate me for this, it's just my opinion.

on the new record: i only listened it twice and untill know i prefer every other record you made.. it's good, but not as fantastic.. now, every record grows on me (i took a long time for knife play, but now it's one of my favs) so .. hopefully it gets better with time..

and! tomlab is a fantastic label.

hope to see xiu xiu soon in europe.

[hipperthanu]

dear "whatthefuckever"

it being paid for originally doesn't affect whether or not functionally it is any different. our society accepts reselling products that we buy as being a fine thing to do, and i'm definitely not contesting it as being something you shouldn't do. all i'm saying is the difference is completely moot because either way, the artist/label/promoter all receive nothing for said sale.

now this becomes a different thing if you also want to support your local indie music store, but that's another topic entirely. saying "at some point xiu xiu got paid" is seperate from the point, that for that sale, they didn't.

this is purely a philosophical argument here. i'm just proposing that some widely held beliefs about what's okay to do can be just as damaging as what is universally hailed as stealing.

and thanks for the "whatthefuckever" and the "duh" they really emphasized your points, making you appear very mature and considerate. touche.

[Anonymous]

hipper--
you asked for people's thoughts. people told you what they thought. you have no right to chastise.
I think that what whatthefuckever is saying is that why should an artist/label get paid twice for a used CD?
That's valid.
We could all get second jobs and give all our money to Jamie Stewart...and then we'd REALLY be fans--right? RIGHT???!
At some point maybe you hafta draw the line.

[hipperthanu]

i have the right to chastise whoever the "fuck" i feel like for being rude about a question i put forth asking for thoughts.

if i'd said "HEY FUCKERS, DUH, USED CDS ARE THE SAME, U SHOULD ALL LISTEN TO ME CUZ I'M RIGHT" your argument might have a leg to stand on.

if any of you think indie musicians are getting rich (or even trying) then you need to reevaluate. they're probably trying to pay their bills, and maybe afford another tour. or maybe instruments, if theirs got stolen from a van.

my point in "chastising" was that, however valid his/her/its point might have been, you forfeit your credibility if you borderline insult the people you're supposedly trying to convince.

[Anonymous]

well wouldn't you like to know if you were being incredibly stupid? Someone SHOULD tell you those things. I read that somewhere.

[Anonymous]

So don't take things as insults.

I'm sure some indie people are in it to get rich. It just makes sense with this large a sample size.

[boygirlparty]

Guest-wim said:

first of all.; i think music should be free. how can you own sound.. it seems stupid to me. i am a muscian and i put all my music free on the net.

i completely disagree with this. why shouldn't musicians be supported/compensated for their artistic endeavors in the same way anyone else in the arts is? it's great that home recording has enabled a lot of people to make music with little to no cash, and mp3 trading has enabled marketing without packaging expense, and there are people who leisurely make music and are happy just to have it out there. but every person has to pay their rent, and musicians have more than the standard number of expenses based on the fucking everything-is-gonna-suck-at-some-point factor that will plague every piece of equipment, no matter how expensive and perfect. and the musician busting their ass making records that are no longer bought, playing shows they often don't get paid for, paying expensive studio fees/van rentals/replacing equipment, dealing with all the hands that need greasing when it's all said and done, the debts incurred, the electricity bills, should not feel guilty for making a profit (if ever!) in return.

"how can you own sound"? it's easy, you've made it. if any of your songs ended up on a commercial for the re-election of george bush, i'm sure you'd feel very differently about the ethics of ownership. it's a harsh example, but the fact is that the music business/food chain is flawed, not the concept of artists owning and being rewarded for the music they make or a job well done.

Guest-wim said:

you could divide it in 2 parts
when you sell your music, is it because you want money for it? or do you make music because you like doing so, and appreciate it when people like it?

the reward of selling music can be as simple as NOT being thousands of dollars in the negative simply because you released a record.

despite my arguments for the musician and the financial compensation musicians deserve in proportion to their success, i agree with many of the positive things said about mp3 trading, not to mention the fact that guerilla marketing is an age old concept that has simply been updated. and unleashed. and corporations are scared, but the indie musician need not be. more people are listening to indie than ever before, and people who never spent money on records are still not spending money that records, and people who did spend lots of money on records are simply addicted and will never, ever stop until they're dirt poor.

i appreciate mp3 trading for the fact that if your music is good, it will actually be heard - which in the past, record labels, especially the small ones - have had to shell out serious bucks on promo copies and advertising, and all sorts of other things that are not very helpful to the sustainability of a small operation. i think xiu xiu is a band in particular that has benefitted extraordinarily from this medium. although i can understand the disappointment of seeing a brand new, not-yet-released record leaked all over the net from the perspective of the artist, it is the exact opposite situation for the listener, who thrives on that sort of excitement of finding something and being the first to discover how truly wonderful it is.

and finally... jamie is amazingly kind. nobody disrespect the nicest guy in the music food chain.

--susie

[Another Human With An Opinion]

I have to add my vote to the "I downloaded the mp3, then bought the album" category. I discovered Xiu Xiu through an excellent local radio station, so this argument is a more general one than band-specific.

Just like everyone else, I love having the actual album/CD. But, given the chance, I would rather hear a good and full song from a particular artist/CD before I plonk down my hard-earned cash. I have actually bought more CDs since the advent of mp3's than I did before. I've also avoided buying a lot of terrible CDs that got great reviews, good word-of-mouth, etc., because I was able to listen beforehand and form an opinion before I wasted money. I think most artists would not have a problem with this.

In my experience, the group of folks who download mp3s but never buy the album are typically consumers of commercial garbage music. As such, that music is disposable - think of all the platinum-selling bands that have dropped off the map since their heyday, and then look at a used CD website. You'll find all their albums for sale for $0.75. The people who bought, for example, a Color Me Badd CD when they were popular, and who are now selling it for super cheap on half.com, are the same types now downloading tons of Eminem and Brittany Spears and Matchbox 20 from the peer-to-peer
services. These are the casual music fans who buy music primarily as a soundtrack to their high school memories, or as simple stupid entertainment - the aural equivalent of professional wrestling.

Of the people I know, those who appreciate music as an artform (and accordingly have taste the often runs counter to MTVesque fecal music - and are often the type who support independent labels by buying independent), ALWAYS buy the CD though they often have the mp3 ahead of time. I can't explain exactly why this has been my experience - maybe these people are more respectful of artists and art, or maybe they just want the liner notes and such. I guess it doesn't matter either way though, as long as they buy the album.

I agree with a previous poster that the Used CD market is not emphasized enough in the alleged downfall of consumer media. But, again, the biggest losses will be for the biggest companies - because they sold more copies of an album in the first place, there will be more used copies of that album available. So, when a billion people buy an Eagle's greatest hits CD, if even a small percentage of that billion decides to resell it then that is still a massive amount of used CDs on the market. Every time someone buys a used CD it is a theoretical direct hit to the profit margins of a major label, because previously the listener had no real option but buying the CD new. Independent labels on the other hand press fewer copies, and have fewer people looking to buy a used copy simply because there are fewer fans. The impact of buying a used independent CD on the independent label's total record sales is small comparatively. Also factor in that most people who buy music independently usually aren't treating it like disposable pop music - they're buying a CD that they genuinely like and didn't just buy because it was popular at the time, that they will more than likely keep, especially if they had the chance to listen to the mp3's beforehand.

The gist of this argument (this long, long argument that I may not even submit) is that the whole MP3/Used CD phenomenon can definitely hurt the major labels (particularly the used CDs), but may actually help independent labels.

Of course, there will always be types who say things like "d00d, really, who can own sound?" - while I'm not one for metaphysical arguments like that, I would advise a practical approach to the problem. We live in a material world, everyone has bills to pay, and musicians pay the bills by making money from music. Independent musicians ESPECIALLY need this. So, all the lofty metaphysical arguments in the world won't mean much when your favorite songwriter has to stop releasing songs and get a job at McDonald's or something simply because you believe "all sound should be free."

More abstractly, music is not just sound. It's organized, tempered, shaped, labored over for hours, weeks, sometimes years or longer, each sound is placed in an unique order that (in the case of genuinely creative music) never existed in the world until it came into the artist's mind and then out of the artist's mind in a recordable format. It's the ORGANIZATION of sound, whether a particular timbre in a single instrument or the overall movement of the song, that makes the isolated raw sounds into a single work of art, and the organization of sound is the talent that makes a songwriter a songwriter. When we are moved in some way buy a particular songwriter's organization of sounds, it makes every bit of sense to help support this songwriter so they can continue creating art that moves us, that makes us feel things that we may not otherwise feel, or lets us experience disturbing passions without suffering through the real-life situations that typically arouse those same passions.
Or, maybe the arrangment of sounds just makes us smile or giggle or something (depending on who you are - not everyone is capable of getting those goosebump shivers through their body just by listening to music.)

The fact is, if you're going to reduce all music by saying it's all "just sound" (which is the implication of the argument that no one can own sound), then Bach is no different than Right Said Fred is no different than Bon Jovi is no different that Boyz II Men is no different to Aphex Twin is no different to Whitney Houston. It's all just sound. True, it is all sound, but what makes some of it good and some of it shit is the ORGANIZATION of the sound in time. And that, again, is the "product" of the musician.

Okay, I'm going to stop here because I want to go masturbate before bedtime. For those of you who have skipped to the last line because you don't feel like reading, then here's the last line:

Lick my ding-dong, biatch.

[hammerparty]

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

well....check it out.

i dled the xiu xiu album. and i wouldnt buy it ever. i dl'ed it for a friend who also would never buy it.

in other words you didnt lose any money with us cuz we werent going to buy it anyways.....

on the other hand we may end up paying for a show when you come near us....but i doubt it because i can probably get us in for free...

stop whining about being so popular. if it wasnt for people spreading around your stuff youd probably have no stuff to spread.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

[Appreciation for Teenagers]

hammerparty said:

stop whining about being so popular. if it wasnt for people spreading around your stuff youd probably have no stuff to spread.

What stunningly brilliant logic!
Anonymous internet shit-stirrers are rare, and you hardly EVER see them on bulletin boards, but when you do see them, they're always very interesting and unique!

No seriously, they are! Because they are so rare and uncommon. People hardly EVER post on a message board anonymously just to stir-up shit. It's just not done! That is why they are so interesting!

Please, show your appreciation for hammerparty!